Spirit photography

[Nearly Sane]

Well he is speaking for me at least because I haven't got a fucking clue what you are on (about)?!

So which question I evading? Which is his position?

[Walter]

Well he is speaking for me at least because I haven't got a fucking clue what you are on (about)?!

or me and I've been with this thread from the start !!!!!

[ProfessorDavey]

Well he is speaking for me at least because I haven't got a fucking clue what you are on (about)?!

Thank you.

Sadly NS has become a bit like a stalker - I make a comment to a completely different poster (e.g. reply217 here which was a reply to SusanDoris) and he piles in with the bit between his teeth. It is all very odd really - somehow NS doesn't live up to his name (but in the wrong direction) whenever he interacts with me.

[ProfessorDavey]

So which question I evading?

Why you question whether the person I was talking about was Scottish is relevant. You haven't come close to answering this despite the fact that I answered your question straight away by confirming that this gut was not Scottish.

Which is his position?

On what?

[ProfessorDavey]

or me and I've been with this thread from the start !!!!!

Indeed you have been and I fully accept that I have come to this thread late and it was never my intention to derail it.

However, hopefully my personal perspective as a professional scientist on the religious position of the countless fellow scientists it has been my pleasure to know is valuable. Certainly it accords with your posts suggesting that scientists (and physicists in particular) are less likely to be religious.

To note (and will probably send NS into palpitations) both of the evangelical Christian scientists I referred to in reply217 are physicists by training. There is no generalisation implied or intended however their rarity is clear from a professional perspective.

[Enki]

Yes, I'd also like to know why NS thought he might be Scottish. The only explanation I can come up with is that it was some sort of dig linked to the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, I'd also like to know why NS thought he might be Scottish. The only explanation I can come up with is that it was some sort of dig linked to the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.

Nope, don't think that is it - I suspect it is much more personal.

[ProfessorDavey]

And Poison Davy presumes to speak for every poster on the board. How cute!

Nope, and nor did I ever claim to be. But three other posters would like you to explain your comment regarding the Scottish-ness of the person I mentioned, or at the very least would like you to post in a way that makes some kind of sense.

Just answer the question and move on.

[Robbie]

Or move on without an explanation accepting that not everything can be explained.  Otherwise this thread might go on for years and years and....

[ProfessorDavey]

Or move on without an explanation ...

Reasonable point.

... accepting that not everything can be explained.

Not so reasonable point - are you suggesting that the reason behind NS's suggestion that a scientist (who he doesn't know, and indeed who I never revealed the identity of) is Scottish is somehow something that cannot be explained.

NS is perfectly able to explain the comment - he chooses not to.

[Robbie]

ISQ

[ProfessorDavey]

ISQ

Explain please.

[Robbie]

In status quo.

[ProfessorDavey]

In status quo.

Sorry - still not clear on your point.

Happy to accept your earlier point that we should move the discussion on. Not so happy to accept your other point that the we should accept that the reason for the en passe (in other words why NS suggested that a scientist I know, and he doesn't, is Scottish) is something that cannot be explained. NS can explain this, but refuses to do so.

[Walter]

Indeed you have been and I fully accept that I have come to this thread late and it was never my intention to derail it.

However, hopefully my personal perspective as a professional scientist on the religious position of the countless fellow scientists it has been my pleasure to know is valuable. Certainly it accords with your posts suggesting that scientists (and physicists in particular) are less likely to be religious.

To note (and will probably send NS into palpitations) both of the evangelical Christian scientists I referred to in reply217 are physicists by training. There is no generalisation implied or intended however their rarity is clear from a professional perspective.

thank you for taking time to express your experience on the matter

[ProfessorDavey]

thank you for taking time to express your experience on the matter

You are welcome - glad it is appreciated.

[Sriram]

That is not what people are saying Sriram. Rather it is that science has found no evidence for spirits etc so their existence is purely a matter of personal belief

The issue is not whether science has found any evidence of God, Spirit, after life etc...or not.  We all know it has not. 

The issue was whether there is any conflict between science and ones belief in such matters.  The 'discussion' further on this thread, if you notice, is also about scientists who happen to be believers.

My point is that there is no conflict between science and a belief in spirit, after life etc.   Science and spiritual matters are not mutually exclusive. We can accept both. My posts 176 and 178 say the same thing.

Whether science has or even CAN ever provide evidence of spiritual matters is questionable, simply because its focus is very different.  What little it can do in terms of NDE research, efforts to understand Consciousness and Qualia, it is doing.

But if people aren't open minded no research can be meaningful. Even if science does find something indicative of spiritual life, habitually skeptical people can always scoff at it (like the moon landing deniers). Memes are powerful things.

Cheers.

Sriram

[Nearly Sane]

For anyone confused by the Is he Scottish question, it was a small and obviously now doomed piece of humour regarding the Prof's recent comments on a number of threads where I mentioned Scotland of me being parochial.  Hence my mention of parishioners. The Poison Davy reference following on my allegation of poisoning the well is to Batman character Poison Ivy. I honestly thought the original comment was obvious to the Prof and that in not getting it, he must be playing dumb.

[Walter]

For anyone confused by the Is he Scottish question, it was a small and obviously now doomed piece of humour regarding the Prof's recent comments on a number of threads where I mentioned Scotland of me being parochial.  Hence my mention of parishioners. The Poison Davy reference following on my allegation of poisoning the well is to Batman character Poison Ivy. I honestly thought the original comment was obvious to the Prof and that in not getting it, he must be playing dumb.

you had to be there for that one !!!!!!!!!!

[Walter]

from sriram
Whether science has or even CAN ever provide evidence of spiritual matters is questionable, simply because its focus is very different.


what do you mean by this please?

[ProfessorDavey]

you had to be there for that one !!!!!!!!!!

Was painfully unfunny even if you were there!

[Maeght]

The issue is not whether science has found any evidence of God, Spirit, after life etc...or not.  We all know it has not. 

The issue was whether there is any conflict between science and ones belief in such matters.  The 'discussion' further on this thread, if you notice, is also about scientists who happen to be believers.

My point is that there is no conflict between science and a belief in spirit, after life etc.   Science and spiritual matters are not mutually exclusive. We can accept both. My posts 176 and 178 say the same thing.

Whether science has or even CAN ever provide evidence of spiritual matters is questionable, simply because its focus is very different.  What little it can do in terms of NDE research, efforts to understand Consciousness and Qualia, it is doing.

But if people aren't open minded no research can be meaningful. Even if science does find something indicative of spiritual life, habitually skeptical people can always scoff at it (like the moon landing deniers). Memes are powerful things.

Cheers.

Sriram

I agree with that post Sriram, but this is not the impression you normally give when posting. Nice to see a more balanced response.

Not accepting other people's beliefs does not mean that people have closed minds. Pointing out that there is no evidence for these beliefs is not scoffing. Recognising that beliefs are memes too is important.

[Sriram]

I agree with that post Sriram, but this is not the impression you normally give when posting. Nice to see a more balanced response.

Not accepting other people's beliefs does not mean that people have closed minds. Pointing out that there is no evidence for these beliefs is not scoffing. Recognising that beliefs are memes too is important.

Nice to know that you are finally agreeing with me..
even though you had disagreed to the same thought in post 179.

Even to recognise 'evidence' people need to have the right attitude. Evidence is only what we are willing to recognise as evidence for something. People have been experiencing gravity for millennia but till Newton pointed it out no one recognised it.

Science and evidence are not as straight forward as we tend to think.

Cheers.

Sriram

[ProfessorDavey]

People have been experiencing gravity for millennia but till Newton pointed it out no one recognised it.

I don't think that is true - before Newton people both experienced and recognised gravity.

What Newton did was to describe and explain it.

[Walter]

Even to recognise 'evidence' people need to have the right attitude. Evidence is only what we are willing to recognise as evidence for something. People have been experiencing gravity for millennia but till Newton pointed it out no one recognised it.


 

this is a poor analogy to illustrate your point . Newton didn't point it out ,he described it's  properties. This is not possible with the phenomena you refer to because no one can find it to examine . How are you going to catch it in order to describe it for a start ?